I have seen multiple times in the last 6 months features turned down
because it was something that could be implemented by an authoring
tool.
Well the end effect of that as I see it is, CSS will be broken into a
series of CSS flavors, with each authoring tool having it's own CSS
extensions. This is a very bad idea. This will force the users of each
flavor of CSS to learn the new proprietary extensions as they move
between environments.
>From a language design perspective I see it as critical that the
actual language files be cross compatible from environment to
environment and that the role of an authoring tool is not to extend
the language but to help mangage it.
A language should not be extended except in the instance where the
extension mechanism is part of the language itself (i.e. C Macros).
External extension mechanisms simply provide for vendor and platform
lock-in as well as preventing the community from coming up with an
ever larger collection of effective examples and how to's.
Let us please drop this notion that the authoring tool should be
responsible for making CSS an effective language.
Orion Adrian